Summations Only

Of course you won't, because you just might learn something like what's really going on. Instead, you'll continue to feed on the right's lies and propaganda.I heard of a special operation for Republicans; it even has a special name. They replace your sternum with a piece of clear plexiglass. That way, you're able to see where you're going when your head is up your arse. That operation is in high demand. We've seen your standards, so we know that that is not the least bit true.

Well, we see all the video, including Trump's many lies and even how those lies change over time. We see video of what happens, so we see him committing obstruction in real time. We see him ordering his people to break the law by ignoring subpoenas, which is also obstruction. We see what the laws are, such as the IRS being required by law to provide Congress with anyone's tax returns -- IOW, "shall" does indeed mean "shall". We have read Mueller's report, not just being told by someone what it says, so we know for a fact that it contains lots of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians and that it describes in detail 10 acts of obstruction of justice and that the only reason Mueller could not indict Trump was because of that OLC memo. We even see copies of Twit-in-Chief Trump's tweets, so we're not just being told what he wrote, but rather we can see them for ourselves. And we see whatOn top of that, we know how things are supposed to work and we can tell when they aren't. Especially veterans like Senior Chief Nance and I know how security and clearances are supposed to be done, so we can see when those are being violated, which this administration has been doing on a massive scale.We've had access to the raw facts for years, so we can compare what the pundits say to what actually happened.As far as we can tell, you just have the right-wing commentators telling you everything you need to believe without showing you the raw facts.You don't have a case.

You forgot to mention that he goes golfing at his country club in order to make a profit from the government paying the club for all rentals, rooms, meals, fees, etc, for him and his entourage (including security). And if how his own hotel overcharged him for the inaugural ball is any indication, those golf resort bills must be heavily padded so that he can make as much profit as he can. So far, that's cost us over $100 million dollars.Let's face it, there's probably no national tragedy great enough to keep Trump from golfing for profit. He does have his priorities. 
That's another difference between Trump and Obama. When Obama went golfing, he'd go to a local military course. Pretty much all it cost us was the motorcade, plus Obama didn't make a dime off of it.

You are just trying to deflect and distract. That has nothing to do with the fact that Trump is profiteering from choosing to go to his own golf resorts. That is not fraud, but rather corruption.The ethical thing for Trump to do would be to go golfing on a course that he does not own. Most military bases have good courses; that's what Obama would use. But then ethical conduct is an alien concept that Trump cannot even begin to grasp.It's obvious that Trump goes to his own golf resorts for profit and the very high frequency of his golf trips make for more profit. Are you trying to deny that Trump does make a profit every time he goes golfing at his own resorts?If you are trying to deny that Trump makes a profit off of his golf trips, then do please present your reasoning.

Typo that needs correction (added bolding): Do you mean: "You do know where ... "?Or do you mean: "You do not know where ... "?I cannot think of any other interpretations for that obvious typographical error.

The racists among Trump's followers find them too. Like the El Paso terrorist who used many things said in Trump's tweets. No, the point is to attack the person who is issuing subpoenas for documents and witnesses so that his committee can conduct its investigations that are needed in their constitutional role of oversight. Subpoenas that Trump is doing everything he can to block, including diverting public attention away from the fact of his ongoing obstruction.The point is also to cater to the racists in his base by using their language.

This is not guilt by association.Trump has no ideology, but he knows how to read a crowd and how to play to it. Regardless of how racist he may or may not be, he keeps playing to the racists in his base, elevating the level of their hate and their fear and providing them the cover to express those hates and fears openly. To openly act upon those hates and fears.It is no coincidence that hate crimes committed by whites have skyrocketed. And it is only now, right now, after almost three years of increasing incidents of domestic terrorism committed by whites that Trump has finally spoken out condemning white supremacy and domestic terrorism (though I'm not sure whether he has actually used the "t-word" yet).Of course, we have no way of telling what he'll say a few days from now. Trump has a long history of completely changing his position from day to day.

In some cases (at least one that I've heard of), they were invited into this country by the federal government so that their child could receive life-saving and -sustaining medical treatment that doesn't exist in their home country (as I recall in this one, Guatemala). Then without any public announcements about it, they received a letter ordering them out of the country within 33 days. Gee, wasn't it the Republicans accusing Democrats of wanting to run "death panels"? Project much, GOP?

And didn't the GOP have control of both houses of Congress for the first two years? Basically, except for the very beginning before he had completely subverted them, they were ready and eager to rubber-stamp anything that Trump wanted. And the oversight and judicial committees were controlled by the GOP, so they completely failed to perform their constitutional duties and provided absolutely no oversight of the Executive.Just exactly how is that supposed to "stolen" the first two years from Trump? If anything, the only "political subterfuges" were committed by the GOP against the country.The only time that I know of that the GOP-controlled Congress went against Trump was in the very beginning, before he had subverted them. One of the very first things that Trump did was to remove all sanctions against Russia, basically his first big thank-you gift to Putin. Congress blocked that move and did so by such a big margin that it was obviously even to Trump that they would easily override a veto of that bill. So Trump had to sign the bill into law, grumbling mightily as he did so.So then exactly how is his first term supposed to have "been stolen from him by political subterfuges unprecedented in history"? Especially compared to how Congress had worked so hard against every single thing that Obama had tried to do, including any kind of infrastructure bills that should have broad bipartisan support? Compared to the unprecedented political subterfuges that Obama had to suffer, Trump's had a leisurely stroll in the park.

That was their plan from the start, since there was no public announcement of the change; all they were doing was mailing out letters to the individuals being affected. It was only after that practice was made public and only because of the bad publicity that generated that they have now "backed down". There's no doubt that they will either go right back to what they were doing before when they think nobody's looking anymore, or else they will mis-process everybody's applications so that everybody gets rejected and deported.They're just taking their lead from their boss. We have repeatedly seen Trump get caught, so he reverses himself to show how "honest" he is, and then he reverses himself again within a few days. The only difference is that Trump is too dumb to be able to keep the second reversal out of the public eye.Here's Chris Hayes' interview from last Friday Washington Post Reporter David Fahrenthold whose beat is Trump finances. He's the one who broke the news that no veterans' organization had received any part of the donations from an event Trump held for veterans in lieu of attending the FOX News-sponsored debate, but instead that money had gone into the Trump Foundation. The Trump Foundation served as a source of spending money for Trump and has been closed down by the State of New York because of its violations of laws regarding charities. Fahrenthold describes his interview with Trump, the strangest one he ever had -- Trump called him and started with the declaration that he had just mailed a check out 10 minutes ago. Basically, this was a case of bad publicity forcing Trump to do what he was supposed to do in the first place -- even though he ended up paying those charities, it took this reporter's reports to force Trump into it. They also get into Trump's hotels and how the Saudis have been paying money to Trump through massive use of his hotels.I forget whether they get into how Trump is funneling government money into his pockets through his far-too-frequent golf trips (more in two years that Obama ever did in 8) to his own over-priced resorts.I know that they didn't get into why Trump held his press conference with the Irish Prime Minister in an airport lounge next to the vending machines. Trump wanted them to go to his local golf resort to do it and make use of three limousines from that resort (for a cost of $1 million), but the Irish declined that "offer" and suggested instead that they use another venue, so Trump just opted for the lounge.I did like that Fahrenthold had been informed by a Trump executive that none of his properties are doing well and that the primary reason is because of Trump. Bad branding.The entire episode is below. It also includes an informative discussion of the problems with the Electoral College and of the Republicans' opposition to the concept of "one person, one vote", an interview of the chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission which has just lost another member bringing them from 4 (barely a quorum) down to 3 (no quorum, so no way to do anything going into a vitally important election year), and GOP Rep Will Hurd who's retiring from his Texas border district (Trump has ordered his minions to break whatever laws necessary to build his wall, promising them pardons, including seizing private property in a state where ranchers have rather strong ideas about private property rights).

Do you know what the name of President Obama's father was? Barack Obama.A mother is going to remember the birth of her own son (for which attendance is mandatory for the mother) more readily then the birth of her grandson which she did not attend. Consider also her age and the fact that all this was being conducted by phone and through translators. So when she's asked about "Barack", whom would she think of first? Like any mother?Besides, we do have the official full birth certificate from Hawaii, which in 1961 was a state in the United States.Also, President Obama's mother was an American citizen, so he could have been born anywhere in the world, even in international waters, and still be born an American citizen, so all your birther BS is moot.If you want to insist that's not the case, then what about Ted Cruz? Did you ever support or consider supporting him for President? I'm sure that many GOP birthers did. Well, his father was a non-citizen, his mother was a citizen, and he was born in a foreign country (Canada, which I should inform you is not a part of the USA).So why support Cruz and reject Obama when Cruz is less qualified for citizenship than Obama? Oh yeah, racism -- but only because Cruz is light enough to pass as white.

Why would any of that keep any competent president from performing his duties? Why are you arguing that Trump is so incompetent and incapable?Obama was constantly being lied about by the Fake News Network, plus he had the GOP-dominated Congress following an extremely obstructionist policy in which they blocked everything they could, yet he was able to accomplish a lot despite that. Why didn't that stop him? Because he was competent and capable.Bill Clinton was actually impeached (albeit as an actual witch hunt), during which he was able to get a lot of constructive work done. Leading up to that impeachment, he was subjected to extensive investigations (the infamous Whitewater BS) that turned up nothing, so Brett Kavanaugh talked Ken Starr into pursuing a new witch hunt, Monica Lewinsky, for which Kavanaugh drew up a list of highly salacious questions with the intent of entrapping Clinton into committing perjury. And in spite of all that, Clinton was still able to function fully and competently as President. Why didn't that stop him? Because he was competent and capable.So why is Trump stopped dead in his tracks whenever anybody doesn't line up to kiss his rancid orange buns? The moment anybody is at all critical of him? We've all seen it. He goes into an incoherent rant, usually on Twitter but more recently for nearly an hour in the driveway. He's so consumed by any criticism that he can't do anything else.Of course, if he had a competent staff, then they'd be able to do all that work for him one he gives them the direction. The problem there is two-fold. First, he's chased off all the competent staff and replaced them with sycophants who know that their survival depends on never contradicting Trump. Second, they'll work in the direction they were told, then suddenly Trump publicly states the opposite and now his staff not only has to dump what they had done and start all over again, but they also have to quickly perform damage control over the incredibly stiupid thing Trump had just said. Even a competent staff would be unable to properly support an ID10T like Trump.If Trump is as incompetent and incapable as you claim he is and such a snowflake that he gets all butt-hurt over the slightest thing, then he clearly doesn't deserve being in the Oval Office.

I've heard that part of the interview. I heard her getting confused, the interpreter had to remind her whom they were talking about, and she corrected herself.Now for you to support your own blatant lie. SHOW US THAT PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT!No, I am simply pointing out that it makes abso-fucking-lutely NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER!!!But obviously that is too subtle a point for you to comprehend. I was pointing out your (pl) gross hypocrisy by supporting Cruz and rejecting Obama with your birther BS when Obama qualifies more as a citizen than Cruz.Look at this chart comparing both of them on the three conditions for natural born citizenship:

Obama                  Cruz
Father is a citizen              no                      no
Mother is a citizen              yes                     yes
Born in US (including            yes                     no
territories, etc)
SCORE                             2                        1
​
You need a score of 1 or more to qualify

Therefore, Obama is more qualified on the citizenship question than Cruz. So why Cruz and not Obama on the citizenship question?Also, Cruz' case clearly shows that your entire birther position is complete and utter BS.Edited by dwise1, : correction in first paragraph

How? You can't even read most charts posted here, so how could you read a copy of a document in such detail as would be needed?Oh, please! 
ABE:
I read Faith's statement in the wrong context. I thought that the context was Obama's long-form birth certificate and her false and refuted claim that it's an obvious forgery, whereas the correct context was the telephone interview with Obama's grandmother.I have no doubt that Faith will never read this ABE, but at least it's on record.Sorry about that.Edited by dwise1, : ABE

I never claimed that you did, so DO NOT MISREPRESENT WHAT I SAY! Wow, you will go to any lengths to avoid simple questions. Typical of creationists! No, it supports my question to you: SO WHAT?What possible importance could you attach to the question of whether Obama was born in an US state (or territory, as in Goldwater's and McCain's cases) or not? You cleave so tightly to your false Kenya-birth claim that it appears that you believe it to be very important. What exactly is that importance supposed to be?So yet again, why did birthers support Cruz and reject Obama? Just because Cruz is light enough to pass as white? Did you ever hear any birther raise any questions about Cruz' citizenship? Why not?